WW, nice question.  However, now I think you're getting out of the "genre" issue and into life questions.     My husband and I have been together over 15 years, lots of trials and tribulations, lots of ups and downs, good times and bad times, times when we've been seperated by job requirements, etc.  The Romance in our lives doesn't stop...and all those things have served to make our bond stronger, but I wouldn't consider my life a whirlwind romance novel (of course, I would hope it's not "historical fiction" at this point either LOL).  I think what your post shows-and all of the discussion that has ensued over one question here- is that there is a TON of substance to the characters and plot lines in Rosina's writing and I think that is why it makes it hard to smash it into one genre or another. Some who are lovers of historical fiction call it such because those are the parts they love of the books, others love the romantic stories between the characters and would call it a romance, some like the adventures and watching the characters go through their trials the most....some like me love all of that put together.  And that's why I used the definition of romantic that I did in my early post....it encompasses all of that.  So, all that rambling aside, I still don't think you write Romance novels per se, Rosina, but I do think you write wonderful romantic characters with very full lives that intrigue and delight us.  As to what genre your books fit into?  I'm beginning to believe they don't fit any one genre enough to truly be classified and that may be what confounds those in the romance community that you would like to see accept you more.

I found this great author Debbie Macomber and really enjoyed her two knitting novels "The Shop on Blossom Street" and "A Good Yarn".� One day I went book shopping and came upon one of her books, so I picked it up and suddenly put it back, because I saw Harlequin written on the cover.� I realized right then and there that I was being prejudice and stupid since I already knew the authors style which was light, fun and very enjoyable.

I admit when I think Harlequin I think predictable light romance, which is not even a bad thing, because when I am in-between Wilderness or Outlander (novels that haunt my days and nights) I automatically go to Maeve Binchy for comfort, she always distracts me with her characters and Ireland.� All this to say that sometimes I enjoy light reading, I don't want to feel everything for the characters because in my case they haunt my dreams.

I have always considered ITW series general fiction, but found them in the Romance section. Love Jennifer Crusie, but how in the bleep did her books end up in general fiction? What an odd, weird thing it is the way "they" categorize things.

 I consider the Into the Wilderness as a historical novel first with a touch of romance.  Most romance books I have read seem to have a formula they follow.  I have read books where I know exactly where it is going within a few chapters.  Rosina your books have far more substance to them than the typical romance novel.  I consider you as a great storyteller - I certainly get involved in your stories, your characters come alive and I feel a range of emotions when I read your books.  I consider anyone who can make me laugh, feel happy, sad and angry when I read a book a brilliant writer.  I classify you as that.
Dianne

My first post! I originally read your ITW books Rosina as historical fiction, but the romantic elements are what keep me interested. I'd classify them if I had to as women's fiction. Interestingly, I recently went to the Romance Writers of America conference and they handed out a big bag of books to each registrant. In mine was Fire along the Sky.

I've seen ITW in the romance section here in Oz and also in the general fiction section. I see TTTT as romance. I guess my take on romance is that it's like alot of other genres. Some good, some bad, some dark and gritty some light and fluffy. One of my favorite romance writers, Loretta Chase is cursed with silly bodice ripping covers. She writes historicals that are witty and clever. Mr Impossible has a bluestocking heroine and a seemingly doltish hero. And I've only read one Judith Ivory Rosina on your recommendation, but it was intelligent and complex. Laura Kinsale's Flowers from the Storm is another book that deals with complex issues.

Never rely on the covers to judge romance books. The publishers haven't caught up with the idea that intelligent women read romance. Although there is a view that the bodice ripper covers are a type of code. Some women love the retro tackiness of them.

Loved it! I read all the ITW books as soon as they come out so that one I donated to a local library in Atlanta rather than carry it home!


I didn't think you did. You've posted too many thoughfull words on this subject on your blog and over at Smart Bitches.

I think it's true though that romance has a bad name. Partly because there have been some pretty terrible ones out there but also I think because it's a woman's genre and like it or not women are still devalued in the culture stakes in this world (IMHO).

Sara, I don't know if anyone has said this, but I think that lots of writers are jealous of you. Sometimes, that happens and they try to avoid you.... That happens more times than the average person realizes...
You write soon wonderful books that lots of people like to read...

Don't worry about these snobs, because your books are sellers and we are buying, so keep them coming!!